Hi everyone,
I think we're on the Beating a dead horse again situation with this
subject.[1] We will be going in circles about it - most of us seem to
not care as much as others, and no one seems to be taking any direct
action at this point. *I'm evening proposing this: someone can create a
mailing list or an on-wiki space (even better!) to continue the
discussion and those folks interested in examining pornography, sex
related, whatnot images on Wikimedia projects can discuss it until their
hearts content and think about ways to take action, etc.*
After request from a few participants off list and my own personal
interest, I'm declaring that we kill this thread and move on.
Participants in this thread may now under go moderator regarding this
specific thread.
And what's more interesting, is that the majority of women who are
participating in this conversation seem to be the one's with the least
concern about it, go figure.
Thanks everyone,
Sarah
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flogging_a_dead_horse
On 6/3/12 3:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com
mailto:notafi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com
mailto:jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
We are not talking about filtering standard sex education images
as you
might find in a school book. We are talking about images or
videos...
[snip to spare Sarah's eyes, and mine]
Andreas, I use Wikipedia on a daily basis, not as an editor, but as a
user, and the only times I've come across those things you mention
were while reading your posts, emails and notes, and clicking on links
*you* provided (or others having the same discourse), never by
chance. I am not saying the problem does not exist, I am the first to
think that many Commons images need to be cleaned up (and not only for
model release and obvious porn reasons, but for many others too), but
I would be grateful if you could avoid emphasizing your point in such
a crude way in every single email you write and derail otherwise
important and interesting threads. Thanks.
Delphine and all,
I appreciate that these things are unpalatable -- if they weren't,
there'd be no problem with Wikimedia hosting them unfiltered, and this
discussion would be moot. We are labouring under what Larry has called
the yuck factor here -- some things are just so unpalatable that
people prefer not to know, and not to get involved.
Saying and doing nothing about this topic would be an option if these
files were as obscure as your personal experience of Wikimedia would
suggest. If they got 10 or 12 views a day, say, there would hardly be
much reason to make a fuss.
But that is not the case.
The most extreme of the three examples I described in my previous mail
has been viewed more than 100,000 times this year. It seems to have
been well advertised, because it had high viewing figures from day
one, months before I ever learnt about it or posted a link about it.
Here are its viewing stats for January, when it was uploaded:
http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/201201/File:Devoirs_de_vacances.ogv
This is from a film that is illegal to view or own in dozens of
countries around the world, including some Western ones, or is at
least restricted to showings in private sex clubs. But at the present
rate, it will have had about a quarter of a million views on Wikimedia
Commons by the end of this year.
Now, given the volume of this demand -- this file has been in the
Commons top-100 -- we cannot simply operate a policy of out of sight,
out of mind, because, while these matters may be out of our minds,
they are verifiably on the minds of tens of thousands of others. A
good proportion of them, certainly, will be children and teenagers
surfing in their bedrooms, whose parents have told them that Wikimedia
is a reputable educational site that is good for them to view.
More such material will accumulate on Wikimedia servers as time
passes. We do need to think about our responsibilities here. Are we
really prepared to host everything, even the most bizarre material,
unfiltered?
Wikimedia is importing thousands of private images from Flickr, where
they are hosted responsibly, behind an age-18 wall, and shared among a
limited and mutually consensual audience, and is putting them on
public view in Commons and Wikipedia for a global audience. Helpful
navigation templates at the bottom of Wikipedia articles enable
enquiring minds to discover illustrated articles on sexual kinks they
could not even have dreamt existed. Is that wholly and unquestionably
a good thing?
There was a related article on this in the Telegraph yesterday, Don't
tell my kids about your sex life:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/9305670/Dont-tell-my-kids-about-your-sex-life.html
The writer is making some valid points in that article.
